This is a question I also had in mind a couple times, and I also had problems in answearing it.

In general, to allow an involvement of citizens it necessary to adapt the processes majorly on the legislative level, because you want to allow that citizens to make contributions on the current policies (changes/advancements/creating new...). The other point is, how you ensure that only society relevant policies can be applied by citizens. You need a threshold since a policy is relevant for larger group of citizens and not only for a small consortium from enterprises etc. On the other hand the barrier should not be to high, because it must be possible for engaged citizens to apply a new policy - you have to keep in mind that not the whole society will participate in the policy making...

There is a wide range of reforms and arrangements in Latin America that try different forms of participation. mainly participatory budgeting. In Sweden there is also a range of participation reforms and experiment that try to boost the participation of citizens beside the ballot!

Thank you Dirk and Oscar. In case there are any websites/online material about the Swedish initiatives, will Oscar be kind enough to give some references?

Thank you, both. Have a great day!

I came across in the net that Al-Hayat Center for Civil Society Development in Jordan has a lot of citizen initiatives towards bringing about change in governance. Does anyone have some inputs to give?

Apart from legislative measures also the structural set-up and power relations operating within these are important variables. At time interests of institutions on different levels might be differ.

Thank you, Ms Friedarike.

You made an important point, although briefly. I presume you meant the Executive Branch or Bureaucracy as we may call it by the term 'Structural set-up'. If my inference is right, there is a profound meaning to your statement.

The legislature is the actual power center because it represents the 'will of the people'. But the legislative intent (expressed through statutes enacted by the legislature) makes a meaningful impact on the intended target (population) only through the bureaucracy. The more responsive and understanding a bureaucracy, the more effective will be the translation of legislative intent into reality.

The power relations therefore between the legislature and bureaucracy (to put it bluntly, the politicians and bureaucrats) will determine the quality of governance. You are right and thank you.

It is precisely because of this reason, that we need to get the third dimension, the people, involved in governance. This participative process should not be based on compassion, consideration or as a 'welfare' measure. It must be part of the institutional process of both the legislature and bureaucratic functioning, as an obligation, at appropriate levels and formats. Currently, I am racking my brain on what form and how much.

But thanks, for putting me on track!!!

Have a great day. And warm wishes for the festival season too!!

In addition to participatory practices, you can check deliberative practices in which learning component has more place. A good start will be deliberative polls.

http://cdd.stanford.edu/

consumer pressure groups are relevant actors, you may find examples for the governance of some strongly scientific and technological-oriented areas such as energy, biotechnology, nanotechnology. Besides, consumer groups go beyond the national dimension and engage globally on those above mentioned and other topics.

Actually, the suggestion that consumerism is a form of political participation is highly controversial. It tend to suggest that the market is a form of political arena were individual expresses voice, even though the action is individual and not oriented towards the common good. That is more part of a neoliberal discourse suggesting were citizens and consumers are conflated. this is visible in almost all welfare institutions were the language and models have become very market and consumer-oriented.

In a developing country like Tanzania where leaders take advantage of people's illiteracy to remain in power, people's participation will be difficult to achieve. A suggested solution to having a true participation of the people is to have a government composed of leaders that are accountable to the people and people have power to get rid of them if found not doing their duties as desired. Under such a situation, people's power can be attained if national elections are carried out freely without government interferences something that has never happened in Tanzania since independence.

Thank you Volkan Gul, Domenico Martinis, Oscar Larsson and Melchior Miambiti for your inputs.

Thanks Volkan for the reference that you gave.

The point that Domenico made, I feel is to be debated. Yes, as Oscar says they may not be directly playing in the political arena for bringing in, shall we say, responsible governance in so far as socio-political issues are concerned. They will push for reforms aimed at creating an environment in which the industry is obliged to give the citizens quality in its goods and services. This means, in a larger sense, CSR. A responsible industry is needed since it will cater to the needs of citizens without compromising its quality and also without exploiting the environment solely for profiteering. The impact of such activism on good governance is perhaps afactors we need to look into.

Though Domenico did not say it in these words, I suppose that is what he meant. It is worth a debate!!

Thank you, have a great day!

Dear Melchior, You have a point about 'accountability' of politicians. Actually in every country that has electoral representation, people have 'Hobsons choice' when it comes to voting for a candidate or party or a candidate. Sometimes we have good manifestos of the party but a corrupt candidate. Sometimes, vice versa. I guess representative democracies will have to live with this.

But there is a power vested in people that no corrupt politician can take away - they can vote anybody in or out. So, what is needed is a campaign by NGOs, peoples groups and such other activists to enhance the political awareness of the people. This will help then to choose responsible candidates into power. I understand that there are quite a few initiatives in this direction taking place in Africa. You may like to see:

http://www.ndi.org/burkina-faso-grassroots-groups

https://www.ndi.org/malawi-voter-education%20

As someone working on deliberative democracy and its practices, I think we should not exaggerate electoral accountability. Of course it is better than nothing however it is not an effective way of ensuring a democratic system. At the end of the day, we are talking about a power that can be used every 4 or 5 years. Such power is simply not powerful. The lack of citizen power in politics is a systemic issue. Unless the ideas and perspectives of citizens are transmitted to the political arena, we cannot talk about the power of people.

Education is crucially important. With better education people's voting preferences might have better bases. However, this does not make the system any more democratic than it is now unless people have more chances of effecting the policy making. This needs a better systemic environment than electoral politics. Here, I think deliberative and participatory models offer great ways of political decision-making.

Dear Srinivasan, my note was to answer your specific question, without a judgement on the form of activism. Up to you to expand the study about, would be very interesting to see the strength and effectiveness of different types of citizen participation. However, about this last point (effectiveness), you will see that consumers/end-user opinion has a strong impact on those innovations that could be dropped or taken up quickly, one stricking example is food as the consumer can effectively turn form one product/brand to another in few days. Different is when it come, for example, to transportation, as sometime the end-user cannot change until the appropriate conditions are reached (you cannot easily abandon your car a go to work by train if you invested money in the first and if the second is not efficient).

I am really curious about political and public accountability. Do you have any information about successful public sector reform which is driven by bottom-up? My country, Cambodia, public institutions that was created in order to have check and balance of powers, but they are all corruption. I am really want to learn other successful experience from other developing nations that use bottom-up approach. Thanks.

Dear Mears Kuy, There is a lot in the net about Accountability Commissions and such other initiatives taken in South Africa and recently, in Indonesia. You may like to google.

Have a great day!

Check this article on my website: Seven Pillars of Democratic Governance.

www.synergyassociates.ca/publications

Thanks Mel, will get back to you.

I was reading up on James Fishkin's strong argument for Deliberative Democracy as a model for citizen participation (thanks to Gul).

I feel that he has a strong case. My only apprehension is how do we make it possible in mammoth populations like China or India?

I have argued that democratically electing the governing bodies of public services would significantly contribute to driving the economy out of recession. See:

Wrennall, L. 2012 Stop the Recession.

http://stoptherecession.weebly.com/stop-the-recession--the-plan.html

Citizen participation is not my areas of research; but I am interested in your question given that I come from a country where there political/administration problem right now. The country I am talking about is Thailand where population is divided into two groups: a group that rejects "one man one vote" policy and wants absolute monarchy system and another group that wants full democratic system (i.e., no hidden dictatorship). To me, from the practical perspectives, the factor that will make citizen participation works the most is not transparency/accountability, but citizens' education and capacity to think scientifically based on observable evidence, not through media and propagandas. Unfortunately, a lot of people in Thailand earn their first degree; but for some reasons, they just can't think by themselves what is good for them. My area is in budget and finance, once a while, I think the best way to make citizen participation works in budget hearing is to get them familiar with government budget document so that they can decide by themselves whether the spending plan is good for them and they will support or not support such plan. Likewise, I think if all citizen is required to take public policy decision class in order to be eligible for voting (notice that I say just take a training not passing a class), at least we can trust in their quality inputs?

From economic perspective, transparency and accountability are important in the sense that people need enough information to decide what choice they want, but before that full information, they need to understand what is good and bad for them. Just my two cents and probably my frustration with Thailand's politics and administration issue now.

Thanks, Lynne. Will get back to you after I go through your paper. In the mean time, some highlights or findings for discussion, please.

There are a couple of deliberative polls organized in China. However, they were small scale. For a large scale deliberative polling you can check the polls organized across European Union. Quite an ambitious project given the scale, different nationalities and languages. Or Japanese experiment can be another one. Again, you can find the details on Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University website. Again, consensus conferences or planning cells are interesting examples of how large numbers of citizens can participate.

Another ambitious project is British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. It was organized to recommend a electoral system for the province of British Columbia in Canada. The recommendation was taken to provincewide referendum. This example was followed by Ontario and the Netherlands citizens' assemblies. They were not the same, though.

About education: I agree that education is important for citizen participation. However, it does not make it work. Rather, it makes it intelligible, reasonable, sound etc. What makes citizen participation work is the effect it creates. Without effect, knowledgable participation cannot improve the quality of democracy. This is a systemic question. And we need to talk about the willingness of political authorities. It seems that without their commitment, citizen participation cannot achieve much. Of course, increased level of information is great and in the long run we might expect to see it as a real check on governments. However, how realistic this expectation is another question.

Finally, I am not sure how we can know whether people know what is good or bad for them. People disagree about many things some of which are very fundamental.

Check out this UN book:

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN020213.pdf

It contains an essay of mine on top-down vs bottom-up citizen participation that you might find useful.

Thank you Larry. Will do.

Thanks to you also, Volkan. I think you made a pertinent point in saying - What makes citizen participation work is the effect it creates. And then you said - we need to talk about the willingness of political authorities.

Are these not contradictory in a sense? who makes somebody a 'political authority'? How do the political authority derive their 'power'? Who ever vests the authority on them can take it back also, if the political authority does not perform what is expected out of him?

These are some questions that need to be debated at least in a democracy.

If good governance is defined only in terms of specific parameters (i.e. preceding subsequent expected or unexpected events) then citizen participation is best defined by what parameters allow it. Meaning, citizen participation 'could' be defined 'by' government.

If a definition of good governance includes administratively structural, judicial and legislative responsiveness (i.e. the latitude to make adjustments based upon social political 'climates') then I would say, petitions, public protests, and other activism resulting in desired adjustments made by the aforementioned etc... In short the real question is "What defines good participation?"

Thought provoking, Hughes. Just going by the last part of your comment, I presume that we both take citizen participation as an essential or even inevitable component of governance. Therefore, we must look at what defines good participation.

what do you think will be its essential elements?

Why that which history deems favorably of course. My quandary is this: If the only 'good' participants are the dead ones history will show a bias toward the powerful. On the other hand if I am concerned with the quality of participation, supreme and ultimate sacrifices seem to be essential elements enabling the best assessments. Hence, good (g)overnance must allow participation that would destroy it govern(ment).

For me it is also a question of who remains to utter the word "good" in judgement of events.

This is a question I have focused on quite a bit: What is "good" public participation?

(see the attachment)

Hughes suggests differentiating procedure from outcome. This is wise, yet there are two challenges: 1. There is no objective set of criteria to evaluate process or outcomes - different autonomous and legitimate political actors want and demand different things from public involvement. Despite this, many of us have proposed sets of generic criteria that can be evaluated from multiple perspectives. Evaluations from multiple perspectives can highlight points of agreement (consensus even) and disagreement. 2. Outcomes are notoriously difficult to evaluate due to all the extraneous factors at play in the political administrative system and due to the unresolvable question of timing -- when, precisely, do we do the outcome evaluation? (one month afterwards, two months?...)

There are many examples of "good" public participation, and many examples of "bad" and there is a very wide breadth of applications. The report on participatory budgeting that Larry Willmore of IIASA suggested (above) is a good introduction to that topic. It is challenging to develop theory that is relevant in so many different areas of application.

Article What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectiv...

Dear Thomas, indeed a very valuable input. The environmental issue for which you had adopted the Q method, is a good example both for citizen participation as well as evaluating it. I have one small point to add:

When there is a genuine public cause (like in this case where protection of environment is involved), activist leaders can mobilise the community and direct their energy constructively to bring about policy change or by extension, good governance. A high level of awareness in the community for such issues would make the social movement that much more focused and quick to organise.

What happens when the level of awareness in the community is low? what are the challenges in organising such a community towards positive change?

with best wishes for a Happy New Year for all contributors!

srinivasan

Dear Srinivasan,

Greetings to you and Pondicherry University - where I was a Fulbrighter (Dept Environ. Science) back in 2008. I found the students there to be very engaged in conservation biology issues! Mobilizing public support for change is critical in so many topics where voluntary compliance or voluntary behavior change is the key to solving problems. Enforcement is expensive and often not effective (although I recognize that there are some very successful enforcement programs).

When community awareness is low but we have evidence of a problem in the public interest, I believe that have the obligation, as scientists, to collect data, analyze and present it to the wider community in order to build awareness of the problem. We also need to remember that framing of information can be a political act.

I am very interested in the challenge of working with subsistence resource appropriators , particularly when the means by which they achieve their livelihood works against a collective interest (such as overfishing at coral reefs).

What are your experiences in working on collective problems?

Tom

Dear Tom,

I am really glad to say ‘hi’ to you (what with your ‘French’ connection!). WRT your question, I would like to share the following:

Years before, we were working with a tribal population in a remote cluster of hills. The community had rudimentary agricultural knowhow (nothing beyond working with hands on small patches of land adjoining their homes); illiterate and used only a dialect derived from Tamil; had no access to education, basic health care, etc and lived in one of the bio-rich forests in the region, otherwise inaccessible, except for a dirt track that wound around the hills to reach just one of the bigger hamlets. I am sure you can picture the conditions.

As their population grew, the agriculture was not adequate to even get them one meal a day. So they started exploiting the forest resource. They meant no ill to environment but unlike some other tribes in the state of Nagaland or Meghalaya in India, this tribe did not posses ‘wisdom with the wild’ (if I may use such an expression!) Their exploitation therefore resulted in degradation.

We were a group of young men, bonded by our zeal to do social work, community service and such blah blah; not scientists or researchers with statistical and measurement tools (unfortunately, even now I am not). But we had an outstanding mentor all of 72 years then, who had an implicit understanding of the community. Day after day he drove us to undertake three things: First, teach them basic agriculture; second, educate them on how to use their forest responsibly; third, do not talk but act (meaning, involve them in undertaking projects through self-help to improve their lives). In over six months that I was associated, we helped them harvest water in artificial ponds, dug irrigation canals from the ponds to their fields, let them rear fish in those ponds, taught them to read and write, etc.

There was another dimension to the scene. Unscrupulous businessmen from the nearest town used the poverty of the tribal people to hasten exploitation of forest resources. The hapless community used to fell trees and sell the timber for pittance to them. No government authority ever visited the area because it was a ‘backward’ area where the attractions of the hill stations did not exist. Our mentor used to campaign with government officials so as bring basic infrastructure like roads, electricity, primary health care centre, etc, to the hills.

His relentless campaign with government agencies and hardcore ‘social work’ brought the tribes to work with him and campaign with him, but very slowly.

Months later, I left for shall I say ‘greener pastures’ from social work. But the lessons of my association with the people of those hills are:

1. People look for the fulfillment of their basic needs. When they have options to obtain them through enlightened education, they are willing to learn and sustain their environment too.

2. Government schemes need to work on ground. When they do, people are willing to change.

3. Good community leaders are required. Of course you cannot buy them off the shelf in Wall mart. That is where Universities and educational institutes, voluntary agencies etc come in. The quality of education, not oriented towards a cushy job in Silicon Valley alone, but imbibing a sense of community service is highly required (at least in the context of developing part of the world).

I am not a specialist or social scientist. So, I cannot tell you theorems, tools or instruments that can be used in this regard. As a matter of fact, I am also looking for such things to help me understand the phenomena of social change through people’s participation.

Have a great day! Happy New Year!!

Good governance has several attributes but very generally citizen participation can contribute to good governance in many ways and at different levels. Citizen participation is often not spontaneous but comes through effective mobilisation of all citizens of sound mind and more importantly providing the citizenry with the appropriate information/knowledge using message and communication strategies that are well attuned to the cognitive capacities of the target populations. By providing information and knowledge in very comprehensible manner the citizenry will have the requisite tools for engagement and be in a better position to contribute to policy debate, decision making and action, monitoring and feed back devoid of fear, intimidation and the rest of it that tend to make people sit on the fence. The political elite have a duty to liberate the energies of all its human resources for real time citizen participation.

In very populous environments effective mobililisation of the citizenry can come through genuine/committed political, administrative, judiciary and fiscal decentralisation from the center to the lowest level possible (population determined?) with well educated and committed human resource in leadership positions and where there is a robust routine feedback mechanisms both vertically and horizontally.

Andrew-

Do you know of an excellent source on theories of good governance?

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the question.

Many refer to Micheal Lockwood 's paper on Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 754–66. I think that a careful scan of this paper and its references can make interesting reading.

In addition you may want look at Alex Kisingo's Ph.D. 2013 dissertation on Governance of Protected areas in the serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania. He does some interesting analysis in there and has some good references.

Hope this helps

Dear Andrew and Tom,

A good question (I felt that it is a bit 'loaded') from Tom and a sincere response from Andrew. Can I add something?

It is extremely important, in my opinion, that we look at the theories of government. At the same time we must be clear about the socio-cultural context of the people to whom we eventually intend applying those theories, before we jump to conclusions like 'it should be done this way'!!

I am sure we all had a great year 2013. Pray that 2014 gives us better opportunities to bond more!!

Dear Srinivasan,

Yes, context is always important and I would also add that theories of government may also be adapted by considering the geopolitical context as well. This is why in my opinion well informed decentralisation of governance is important for galvanising effective collective action and unity of the citizenry.

good day

Hi,

From my 2011 publication

Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance

Case Lessons from Forestry

Timothy Cadman

Series: International Political Economy Series

Palgrave Macmillan

Tim

Given the erosion of the role of the nation-state as the sole sphere of authority, regardless of its continuing existence and contribution to global politics, is the

discussion across the literature about the practice of democracy in a glob-

alized world. In the old world, democracy is characterized by territorially

located, political parties; in the new, non-territorial sectors, consisting

of groups such as civil society and business, engage one with another

in a much more cooperative set of arrangements, where collaboration

is central to rule-making. Here, deliberation is to be contrasted with the

other democratic end of the continuum, where interests are aggregated

and compete with each other. Within governance theory itself,

the discussion is also about the move away from traditional, towards

new forms of governance. This is complicated by the fact that it is

easier to distinguish between ‘old’ than the many and varied ‘new’ governance types.

Here the rule (perspective, value) concerning participation is that it

should be meaningful. This term is frequently associated with participa-

tion inmuch of the literature, and serves here as a normative, qualitative

descriptor. The second principle, referring to the deliberative, pro-

cedural aspects of governance, has been ascribed the term productive

as its descriptor. This refers to the quality of deliberations, as they

occur within the system, as well as the quality of the outcomes, or

products, of those deliberations. Meaningful participation is assessed

through two criteria, interest representation and organizational responsi-

bility. In the discussion of the governance literature presented above

interest representation is seen as a key component of ‘good’ governance,

and has been linked to three elements of governance, which function

on the indicator level: inclusiveness, demonstrating who has access to a

governance system; equality, indicating the balance of power, or weight,

of participants; and resources, referring to the economic, technical or

institutional capacity of a participant to represent their interests within

the system. The second criterion, organizational responsibility, relates to

whether the range of organizations involved in a governance system

can be considered as acting responsibly. This includes the institution

itself, related entities (such as accreditation and certification bodies) and

its constituents (members and non-members). Responsibility comprises

two indicators, accountability and transparency, which are usually treated together in the literature, and refer to the extent to which the behaviour

of participating organizations can be called to account both inside the

institution and externally by the public at large, and the degree to which

their behaviour is visible and open to scrutiny by other actors within

and beyond the institution.

The procedural principle of productive deliberation is demonstrated

through two criteria, decision-making and implementation. Decision-

making is an essential part of the deliberative process, and is linked in

this study to three indicators: democracy, not referring to a specific mode

of democracy, but rather the extent to which a system can be deemed

to be functioning democratically; agreement, referring to the method

in which decisions are reached, such as voting, or consensus; and dis-

pute settlement, indicating the system’s capacity to manage conflict when

there is no agreement, or there are challenges to decisions made. Imple-

mentation refers to the process of putting commitments into practice. However, the fact that a system has created policies or standards

does not automatically demonstrate productiveness. Three indicators

are therefore associated with implementation in this study: behaviour

change, used to determine whether the implementation of agreements,

or substantive outcomes results in changed behaviour regarding the

problemthat the systemwas created to address; problem-solving, referring

to the extent to which the system has solved the problem it was created

to address; and durability, capturing the related elements of adaptability,

flexibility and resilience.

Tim-

Thank for your posting. I see your publication is a book, which I have not seen. In general, I like the criteria you presented, but I want to examine them more closely. I see a lot of overlaps with the taxonomy I developed structured around the meta-criteria: fairness and competence. Your post is quite dense, thought, and I tried to parse out the taxonomy that you presented, although I feel I was quite inadequate at the job.

Since this box won't let me paste in an outline, I need to attach it. (see below) WOuld you be able to take a look at it and see if I have the structure of your taxonomy correct? I am working on a new paper in this area and would like to cite the relevant work, like yours.

Thanks!

Tom

An insightful contribution Tim. Thank you. I took sometime going over your thought process and have the following to submit for discussion:

1. You used two terms ‘meaningful’ and ‘productive’. Both these terms, unless a clear distinction is made, could possibly mean the same. Any dialogue or process is considered meaningful only when it leads to an understanding (of) or actionable concept. Of course, if we look at ‘meaningful’ only as theoretically and logically sound line of thinking in which the exchange takes place either proving or disproving a theory or opinion, the dialogue could be considered meaningful. (Example would be the ‘meaningful’ dialogue that our Heads of Governments have on the sidelines of international meetings which most of the time lead to nothing on ground!). Productive on the other hand, is an actionable set of opinions or discussions which result in definitive programs on ground.(For example, the UN Secy Gen’s visit to Sahel in Africa, where the WB, EU, etc pledged millions of USD for programs on ground).

I am not sure in which of the above contexts you used both the terms. In case you could throw some light, it will enhance my understanding.

2. The steps that you have drawn for productive deliberation are indeed very perceptive. In the post above, two sets of terms have been used for Decision Making as well as Implementation - 'Agreement' and 'behaviour change' & 'Dispute Settlement' and 'Problem Solving' - as essential elements or processes. It would be illuminating to have your thought process on these.

I think I should hasten to read your book as soon as possible.

Thank you once again for a very good contribution.

An insightful contribution Tim. Thank you. I took sometime going over your thought process and have the following to submit for discussion:

1. You used two terms ‘meaningful’ and ‘productive’. Both these terms, unless a clear distinction is made, could possibly mean the same. Any dialogue or process is considered meaningful only when it leads to an understanding (of) or actionable concept. Of course, if we look at ‘meaningful’ only as theoretically and logically sound line of thinking in which the exchange takes place either proving or disproving a theory or opinion, the dialogue could be considered meaningful. (Example would be the ‘meaningful’ dialogue that our Heads of Governments have on the sidelines of international meetings which most of the time lead to nothing on ground!). Productive on the other hand, is an actionable set of opinions or discussions which result in definitive programs on ground.(For example, the UN Secy Gen’s visit to Sahel in Africa, where the WB, EU, etc pledged millions of USD for programs on ground).

I am not sure in which of the above contexts you used both the terms. In case you could throw some light, it will enhance my understanding.

2. The steps that you have drawn for productive deliberation are indeed very perceptive. In the post above, two sets of terms have been used for Decision Making as well as Implementation - 'Agreement' and 'behaviour change' & 'Dispute Settlement' and 'Problem Solving' - as essential elements or processes. It would be illuminating to have your thought process on these.

I think I should hasten to read your book as soon as possible.

Thank you once again for a very good contribution.

Hi everybody, I coordinate a project on online complaints management for my municipality. I noticed that Citizen Participation and Good Governance, from a practitioner, and/or scholar point of view, can live together. Complaints are in my view The best Citizen form of Participation as they are "unsollicited", but just few of them match correctly the problem in its complexity and provide good advices to be applied in a medium-long term planning activity. Trying to analyze scientifically them, I faced concept as diverse as "professional citizen", "bad citizen", or "expectation-disconfirmation theory". I apologize to reduce to a local level practioners this interesting conversation, but I think it can add more food for thought.

Reply to Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I have amended your attachment. Here it is.

Here to is a link to my original doctoral thesis (2009), where things are more elaborated.

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/9288/1/CadmanThesis.pdf

The was edited of necessity. it is all in the thesis.

Cheers

Tim

Reply to Srinivasan

1. You used two terms ‘meaningful’ and ‘productive’. Both these terms, unless a clear distinction is made, could possibly mean the same. Any dialogue or process is considered meaningful only when it leads to an understanding (of) or actionable concept. Of course, if we look at ‘meaningful’ only as theoretically and logically sound line of thinking in which the exchange takes place either proving or disproving a theory or opinion, the dialogue could be considered meaningful. (Example would be the ‘meaningful’ dialogue that our Heads of Governments have on the sidelines of international meetings which most of the time lead to nothing on ground!).

* That is correct. This is why it is important to distinguish the two. Participation can be meaningful but lead to no outcome.

Productive on the other hand, is an actionable set of opinions or discussions which result in definitive programs on ground.(For example, the UN Secy Gen’s visit to Sahel in Africa, where the WB, EU, etc pledged millions of USD for programs on ground).

I am not sure in which of the above contexts you used both the terms. In case you could throw some light, it will enhance my understanding.

* That is correct. This is why it is important to distinguish the two. Deliberation can be productive, but if it is generated by a select few (for example) there is no meaningful [articipation.

2. The steps that you have drawn for productive deliberation are indeed very perceptive. In the post above, two sets of terms have been used for Decision Making as well as Implementation - 'Agreement' and 'behaviour change' & 'Dispute Settlement' and 'Problem Solving' - as essential elements or processes. It would be illuminating to have your thought process on these.

I think I should hasten to read your book as soon as possible.

* Yes, I would recommend that, I am merely repeating what is there, but I would stress that together these two principles refer to both the inputs and outputs of governance systems, the outcomes these generate, and thereby the legitimacy (quality/effectiveness) of the governance system.

Thank you once again for a very good contribution.

* You too.

@ Alessandro Minelli. Dear Alessandro, the kind of practical input that you shared is valuable. Unless we look at what actually happens on ground, it is not possible to appreciate theory. Please continue to contribute your practical insights. In fact, I have few questions to you:

What happens to the complaints that you receive? How are they processed? Do the peoples reps (I suppose elected reps) who are part of governing council get to know the type of complaints? Do they do anything in the form of bringing 'legislation' by the Council to prevent similar problems in future? (oops, sorry to shoot out so many questions!)

with best wishes.

@ Noluthando. Thank you Noluthando. Whisltle blowing and Bill of Rights (empowering the citizen to expose corruption) and legislating to safeguard fundamental rights - both are as you said very prominent steps towards good governance. If I am not mistaken, it was South Africa that first started "Truth Commissions".

Whistle blowing has met with severe resistance from 'power centres' in governments. Recently, India legislated to disqualify politicians convicted for corruption or any other crime from their legislative posts or as members of Parliament. The legislation was the result of a strong peoples movement for transparency over three decades! In a similar fashion I feel that strong legislation is required to support peoples movements and achieve good governance.

Thank you Tim. Good contribution. I was wondering if 'agreement' can come about without 'behavior change'? If again I understand your thought process correctly, that in the process of decision making, we must attempt to reach a 'consensual' decision.

However, in the process of implementing a 'consensual' decision, problems in terms of execution may pop up due to socio-cultural-political contexts. Like In India if you come to a consensual decision in the Municipal Corporation that we need a road from place A to B, in the process of building the road we will find resistance from a segment of the local community for the lay of the road at a particular point because their place of worship stands there! When we face such a situation we may have to attempt and 'change in their religious behavior' so as to continue the project. The other way around, we may end up 'changing our decisive behavior' and build the road some where else.

I hope I read you correct!!

Hi,

Methods for reaching agreement are a separate aspect of governance. Agreement relates to decision-making, while behaviour change is an aspect of implementation, which relates to putting agreements into practice. When agreements are not 'consensual' they have a higher chance of not leading to behaviour change, as there is a reduced sense of ownership, since the 'interests' around the table have not been able to participate to they extent they require to have their needs met (the principle of 'meaningful participation' in my framework).

The ultimate design objective of any governance system, and the institution in which it operates is that there should be collaboration between people and the processes in which they interact. As a method of reaching agreement consensus is the the 'best' method because it meets everyone's needs, and it takes time, but it has a higher change of leading to durable outcomes, that have changed behaviour and solved the problem.

In your road example, very often the governance is not about meeting everyone's needs but getting an outcome in time for construction to begin, a pre-determined outcome, and 'poor governance'. I believe that it is possible to meet all needs, but it requires a good governance system, and people being honest one with another about their objectives...

Hi Tim,

Thank you for the clarifications. We also consider such instances of 'indecision' and delay in execution of projects as poor governance. The issue that I was highlighting is about certain intangible factors that renders challenges to good governance, like the religious practice of certain religion. Even they know that the road is required. But their 'faith' does not allow them to agree to shift the place of worship. So, we need to factor steps necessary to 'behavior change' in the pre-planning process itself. The surveys are done, community leaders are called, consensus is arrived after much deliberation and certain corrections are applied for execution keeping the sentiments of the community in mind, etc.

Good governance, as you would agree, is not a pill, prepared exactly as per the chemical formulae with ingredients in exacting proportions. It is about people and a host of intangibles like aspirations, dreams, freedom, liberty, etc. Each of these are debatable in any context. That is where finding a via media that is acceptable to everyone is always nearly impossible. It is also why we must have context specific mechanisms to not only get the feel of people, but to involve them in governance process.

Hmm, looks like I am back to my question - How?

Given the all-pervasive, contextual and highly contestable nature of 'governance' and 'citizen participation' from inception to the current practices, I guess, furnishing a straight answer to the million dollar question is almost impossible.

The concept of participatory policy management (the whole spectrum of policy cycle), deliberative democracy, consensual decision making and structural reforms (including power realignment and inclusion) are nice to hear but given the context of 'illiteracy, political naivety, insufficient mechanism to incorporate citizen participation' as you have rightly mentioned in the background information, putting the nice concept with 'good' prefix on the litmus of real life situation is really a daunting task. In such a situation citizen neither have willingness nor ability to effectively participate for good governance. Does it mean that developing countries should give up these concepts and wait for conducive environment? Definitely not, realization is not a sign of pessimism. I think, moving ahead iteratively through the constraints to the right direction is highly desirable to such a situation.

There are limits to all the nice concepts. Participation is a nice concept but still there is a question, who participate for what interests and who prevails. Similar is the case of deliberative democracy. Similarly, decisions made by consensus are not always good. Likewise, civil societies in reality do not always possess independence and integrity as the consumer groups are not free from their vested interests. Let me put some examples from my own country Nepal. We emphasized on the involvement of consumer groups in the local development initiatives in the post 1990 era, the result was the massive decentralization of corruption to the grassroots level; changing camps and even parties was common to get the crucial positions of consumer groups. Similarly, we emphasized on consensual decision making to decide the vital political issues after the 2006 popular movement, as a consequence the basic norms of democracy were frequently violated for the convenience of political leaders. We embraced deliberative democracy for social inclusion and empowerment but the strong opinion makers diverted it to primitive ethnic politics. All these limits need to be considered before we adopt and adapt these concepts.

Coming closer to the question: like transparency and accountability, predictability is an important prerequisite to ensure citizen participation for good governance. For that, I think, constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and legislations on right to information/whistle blowing and political accountability are vital. Functioning of free and fair election and the culture of participation are other important prerequisites. Free, fair and competent oversight mechanism is also equally important. Citizen participation cannot thrive in the absence of decentralization. It is important to all forms of unitary or federal governance and more important to the large democracies like India. However, decentralization should reach up to the grassroots level. Otherwise, there is always a risk of emerging 'regional lords' that hampers true citizen participation.

Parliamentary committees can promote citizen participation through public hearings. Independent Judiciary that is accountable to popularly elected supreme body (parliament) can promote participatory democracy. Dedicated bench/es or similar mechanism for public interest litigation can help for the promotion of citizen participation. To the executives front all the political executives or political advisers should be made accountable to the citizen through clearly spelt roles, responsibilities and duties. None of the governance mechanism should be immune from citizen's scrutiny (directly or indirectly through people's representatives).

Dear Ram,

Each of those points that you have mentioned merit in-depth reflection: I take the liberty to list your points:

1. Constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights

2. Right to information & protection of whistle blowers

3. Free and fair elections

4. Fair and competent oversight mechanisms

5. Decentralisation

6. Public hearings by Parliamentary Committees

7. Independent Judiciary

8. Well defined charter (roles) for public functionaries that mandate transparency

9. Mechanisms for citizen's scrutiny of public institutions

I am reminded of an incident when General George Patton Jr (WW II) was asked as to the secret of his outstanding success in the European campaign. Reportedly, he said "Belief in victory, born out of our demonstrated ability". If I transfer this to the political science arena and to citizen participation, I read it as:

"Faith in democracy, through committed institutions, guided by unassailable values".

Thank you for your inputs. Hope to hear a lot more!

Hi Srinivasan,

on your questions. Complaints are handled according to a quality management system procedure and duly treated and archived online. Reps can access them, in particular at neighborhood level, but in general treatment for continuous improvement is a public managers issue, not a politicians issue, according to Italian law (politicians control and point out the general lines of public action)

Your original question, Srinivasan, and the thoughtful discussion it has sparked are all valuable. May I suggest the serious consideration of Socioeconomic Democracy as a peaceful, just and democratic resolution of the myriad unnecessary and painful problems confronting humanity caused by the maldistribution of wealth both within and among nations and resolvable with citizen participation.

Socioeconomic Democracy is a theoretically consistent and practically implementable socioeconomic system wherein there exist both some form and amount of locally appropriate Universally Guaranteed Personal Income and some form and amount of locally appropriate Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth, with both the lower bound on personal material poverty and the upper bound on personal material wealth set and adjusted democratically by all participants of a democratic society.

Socioeconomic Democracy is trivially accomplished with elementary Public Choice Theory. It further provides the necessary and presently missing but essential economic incentive, for all those with the financial capability to do so, to work productively to realize a much improved and sustainable economic system dedicated to the betterment of all.

As has been demonstrated elsewhere, Socioeconomic Democracy can eliminate or significantly reduce a multitude of serious-to-deadly, but utterly unnecessary, intimately intertwined societal problems including (but by no means limited to) those familiar ones associated with: automation, computerization and robotization; budget deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; maltreatment of children; crime and punishment; development, sustainable or otherwise; ecology, environment, resources and pollution; education; the elderly; the feminine majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational conflict; involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor strife and strikes; sick medical and health care; military metamorphosis; natural disasters; pay justice; planned obsolescence; political participation; poverty; racism; sexism; and the General Welfare.

A few, of many, relevant links:

"A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform, in search of a Democratic Political Party"

http://www.centersds.com/dsep.html

Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System (Praeger Studies on the 21st Century, 2002)

http://www.centersds.com/thebook.htm

"Bibliography of Socioeconomic Democracy"

http://www.centersds.com/biblio.htm

"Socioeconomic Democracy"

International Journal of Science, February, 2012, (pp.33-48).

http://ijosc.net/index.html

My humbly contribution is for every body to participate in the political process such as voters registration, vote during election, seek for elective position if you can. Other means is to write articles on critical issues to express opinion and educate small groups on need for change in certain issues.

Dear Robly,

Indeed an interesting contribution. While I will check out the links, the first glance impression is that the socioeconomic democracy model has actually tried to 'moderate' a typical communist economic agenda by allowing proportionately higher personal wealth according to one's contribution for overall economic development. I do not know if my first impression is right!

In any governance model (based on any capitalism, communism, democracy, etc), the stake holders are always the people. How does this socioeconomic democracy model integrate or empower them in decision making process?

Thanks again!

Dear Philip,

Your 'humble' contributions are actually some of the most challenging but essential tools for democracy as well as citizen participation. Thank you.

The level to which free and fair conduct of elections are conducted in a country actually reflect peoples faith in democracy and the vibrancy of the system of governance. If you take India for example, in about five months time from now, the country is going to have the 16th General Elections. With nearly 0.75 billion voters, it is the largest exercise in democracy anywhere in the world. Not with standing other factors in India, the Election Commission of India (EC) is a constitutional and independent body that has overseen 15 national elections till now. As an Indian, we feel proud that the EC has upheld impartiality in the execution of its tasks and has consistently remained apolitical. For a 68 year old democracy (the largest in terms of voters, in the world), you would agree that this is no mean achievement.

The other point you mentioned perhaps is on freedom of expression and a free media. These are fundamental to enhance peoples participation; to increase transparency and bring in certain amount of accountability in governance. Great point and thank you.

Dear Srin (if I may),

Your comment is appreciated and respected. My earlier comment requires, I fully acknowledge, much expansion. Hoping you do indeed “check out” the links provided, may I now simply say that Socioeconomic Democracy (SeD) is a forty-plus year attempt to not only “’moderate’ a typical communist economic agenda” but also to moderate a typical ‘socialist agenda’ (any and all of its 57 varieties), a capitalist agenda (in any of its continuously metamorphosing modes), libertarianism, anarchism, and all those other stunted systems, including presently demented democracy.

Regarding “good governance”, your suggested and certainly necessary topic of conversation, Philip’s “humble” contribution is succinctly Right On. In a meaningful Democracy, the “stake holders are [indeed] always the people." With Socioeconomic Democracy, you will see that “the people” do indeed control the important “decision making process.” Happy reading.

Dear Robley,

My apologies for leaving out the 'e' while addressing you last time!! You may please add an 'i' to SRIN (srini) for that is how my friends call me.

I will hasten to read the references and get back to this thread. Thanks again

Dear Robley,

My apologies for leaving out the 'e' while addressing you last time!! You may please add an 'i' to SRIN (srini) for that is how my friends call me.

I will hasten to read the references and get back to this thread. Thanks again

Dear Srini,

May we all contribute to the betterment of all humanity.

Best wishes, Rob

Many theorists claim that citizen participation has effects on the quality of democracy. Citizens also need the desire to exercise their rights and the political space to do without unreasonable resistance or harrassment from authorities or others.

Agree with Martha. A recent article in Journal of Communication ' A communicative action approach to evaluating citizen support for a Government's smoking policies' about a hybrid gvt such as Singapore in this case, uses Habermas as a foundation to look in essence at both distributive and procedural justice(hence Rawls - my guess) to substantiate or not a govt's legitimacy. The operational dimensions may well vary from nation to nation, but they give you a quite comprehensive operational way of what the pre-requisites are for actually governing, and hence to measure to what extent citizens are actually believe they are genuinely involved in the 'democratic' process. So 'legitimacy' seems to be a factor as well. Bu that doesn't really answer your questions re. illiteracy on the one hand and 'what do you do' on the other. With regards to 'illiteracy', a least in science communication, we've learned that 'illiteracy' isn't really the problem, it's more that the elites believe there is a knowledge gap, and aren't really paying attention to considerations that are out of their frames to start of with - so for a start there, it is recommended that they start listening to concerns that may not have anything to do with the 'common consensus of understanding' - i.e. concerns may well lay outside of what the elites consider to be the set of issues on the agenda. What you do on the other hand is to bolster processes of free speech: Enable the ability to raise concerns and alternatives (and actually take account of them, or at least tell people why you didn't); Ensure that there isn't an asymmetry between those that can raise their concerns and those that can't (for example do away with a caste system); And last but not least, ensure that the way in which anyone coming up with their concerns is treated fairly - John Rawl's veil of ignorance would be a start.

Hello Johan;

citizen participation es very important to face power government, because in most cases bereaucracy takes decisions in a way unilateral.

Dear Martha,

One of the most 'troublesome' aspects of democracy everywhere is the bureaucracy that you referred to. Ardent exponents of Weberian model would vehemently advocate that no democracy can ever survive without bureaucracy. It is agreed that bureaucracy is an important pillar of democracy when it comes to delivery. How ever, in the context of developing democracies, bureaucracy appears to appropriate enormous powers without ACCOUNTABILITY and in the process hijack the very purpose of democracy - people.

How do we find a solution to having an 'accountable' bureaucracy in a democracy is a question that will perhaps continue to daunt us for quite sometime. As yet, I cannot venture an answer too!!

Good point, Martha, please share your thoughts.

Warm regards.

Dear Johan,

With reference to the last point of your comment - do you really believe that we can do away with caste system? We may call it by what ever name, but no society, no country is without a caste system and its attendant prejudices. Can we really do without such prejudices?

Any political system that recognizes separation of power between the legislature, executive and judiciary is half-way into the promotion of citizen participation. The second half of the work is to make each of these institutions functional. An active legislative system is expected to take advice from the people on the issues for legislation. In making and passing laws, the parliament must ensure that the best interest of the people are protected. In planning and implementing development projects, the executive is also expected to represent the best interest of the people. There is a difference between the felt and real needs of the people. In order to arrive at the real needs of the people, they must be consulted. Similarly, the judiciary must act in the best interest of the people. The point that one is trying to make here is that it is not possible for everybody to participate in a government. Those that have been elected or chosen to represent the people must act in their best interest,

I think in general that any political system represents not all people, only a especif groups, They have money.

Citizen participation is the hallmark of democratic governance. It has too little to do with money. One can be poor and still participate effectively in a political system if the institutions of the state are not personalized. For example where the legislature is truly representative, the judiciary is independent and the executive is altruistic, the best interest of the majority of the people are protected.

We need to distinguish. One thing is to ask whether citizens' participation (what kind of citizens? Lay public? Organized Public? CSOs?) improves the quality of policy decision making. In this case, the literature looking at empirical results of Participatory technology assessment exercises consider this controversial (Rowe and Frewer wrote two articles on this). The other question is whether citizens' participation, though not improving the quality of policy decision making, may still improve accountability and transparency and, thus, democracy. Again, empirical outcomes are contrasting: often more participation means more conflict and more polarisation, which effectively does not improve democracy (See A. Bora, for instance). This is not to say that participation is bad. It means that the terms and conditions, the agenda, the methods and the time in which participation has to take place need to be decided and selected with the consent and contribution by all the participants. Something that has, honestly, not been done so far.

There is another aspect of citizen participation. The involvement of citizens' know-how and experience becomes more and more important in a knowledge-based society, in which the government has not always enough expertise in-house and needs to rely on users, producers, NGO's etc. It is also a way to reach a higher level of customer satisfaction.

@ Daniella B.

You are right to the extent that what you state are theoretical and normative reasons for more involvement by citizens and end-users. Empirical research has however showed that participatory policy making that are open to participation often fail to include 'normal' citizens. Instead, strong groups and lobby groups and major business participate and halt for wider involvement of groups with diverting interests and low resources. Therefore, (citizens) participatory in public policy making often grant unwarranted influence to strong groups and actors, foremost 'big business'!

I agree. But I wonder whether we should give up for this reason the idea of citizen involvement. I think on the contrary that this should be a motivation to invest more in the question of how to effectively engage with 'all' citizens and to inquire which are important prerequisites 'to have them on board' or why they are not participating. There may be different reasons for that.

Education to citizenship is the starting point. you can t expect from citizens to be involved involved in political participation if they ignore the basics of citizenship. for this, an education process is fundamental. it s not question of implementation of mechanism tha t could garantee the success of of democratic model but how people become more familiar with the culture of the whole system. Democracy is a long process it could be dangerous if not integrating all the components of the enviroment that may soustain the right functioning of the model.

Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi have a paper about Governance Indicators for 1996-2004, one of the conclusions is that They emphasized the difficulty of measurring governance. Indicators can be more informative.

Dear Srini,

Sorry missed your comment from 7 days ago. You are right, we do have 'caste' systems in every social context. So apologies if what I was trying to say sounded too simplistic. What I was referring to was the need - in the context of citizen participation - to balance the inherent information and power asymmetries between the elites that more often than not have the knowledge and the information, the power and the networks to participate and those that do not. Good governance therefore would aim to create the conditions where these 'outsider' groups of citizens (as opposed to the 'insider' elites - if you permit this short-hand framing of both) a) have a voice, b) are listened to and c) given fair feedback as to their voiced opinions etc. That way, admittedly you do not get rid of prejudices (and I agree that trying to do so is not only spurious but may actually have too many unintended consequences) but at least you can try to balance one against another.

Best regards,

Johan

Citizen participation in democracy is undoubtedly a good and healthy process for the good governance but this can be done only on the basis of accountability unaccountable citizens can never contribute in good governance. Now the question come how to define accountable citizenship? This can be be done on the basis of number of years spent as an accountable citizen in the country and level of education as well may be Vilfredo Pareto is right when he limits the voting rights of people, all people can not be given the voting right but right to work and live. After showing their accountability they can be connected to the process.

But unaccountable citizens can bring rapid deterioration to the governance even as normal level, there are example from several countries, like India and Pakistan can be put strongly both countries are the victim of refugee's participation in the governance.

Citizen participation is an opportunity to people to participate in decisions which affect them. In most cases key decissions are taken for few people. However, citizen participation has long been a component of the democratic decision making process.

Citizen participation in democracy and decision making is now more visible than before due to social media tools like Facebook, twitter, you tube due to mobile phone internet access. Some government officials read opinion of people and share information through social media which is healthy for democracy.

One of the challenges to meaningful citizen participation in governance is the availability and acceptability of local 'expertise'. Lack of expertise on technical or highly specialized opinion for finding solutions to local issues is an area where bureaucracy successfully negates the call for citizen participation.

The street wisdom of the local community is often inadequate to address local issues. We understand that wisdom needs to be converted into actionable projects. Then only citizens' issues can be resolved. How do we resolve this aspect? Are there any functional models where expertise is integrated into citizen participation for better governance?

One hands-on way that citizens are helping to improve government services is through the use of the app "See. Click. Fix." I've been using it for several years now and it is exciting to see that Chicago DOT is actually paying attention to (some of) the posts and responding to comments. People can report potholes or other localized issues and other people vote it up or comment. The government can't be everywhere all the time, and getting immediate feedback on infrastructure issues can help prioritize actions. I think it's been successful for graffiti removal.

Obviously, there are inherent flaws but the more participants, the better the information. http://en.seeclickfix.com/

These days "citizen science" and data literacy can be important to better define "problems" in a more quantitative manner rather than policy by anecdote.

Citizen participation contribute to good governance through their active involvement in the electoral processes, stakeholders in decision making-making processes, constructive engagement with state -actors and holding their leaders to account. It requires vibrant civil society.

Please also see: http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/pdf/081508.pdf

http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/pdf/112808.pdf

Ignorance, apathy and lack of ability to adequately express interest in the issues relating to governance has often led policy makers, politicians and administrator to take undue advantage of the citizens. Hence it is not just a question of rights but awareness of what is expected of their leaders. Hence education, awareness and increasing ability to articulate their concerns are extremely crucial in ensuring that citizens are able to positively influence the policy choices that confront the countries. Most governments would rather have docile and inactive citizenry so that they could readily conduct their affairs without the insistence of efficiency and value for money accompanied by appropriate levels of accountability and transparency.Yes, indeed, a vibrant and an organised society that has a forum to question actions of policy makes would surely go a long way to help address matters of good governance. Botswana has an excellent system whereby the citizens have a forum to question and inquire about government programmes during each period and it is no wonder that policy makers are constantly on their feet to address matters of good governance and efficiency in the use of national or provincial resources for development.

Hello Alexander:

Mexican case is interesting about citizen participation in good governance. In 1988, presidential elections, people voted, and chose a polticial system with many polticial parties, noy only PRI (The Ruler Party). In 2000, is a especial date, because presidential election was won by Vicente Fox, citizen participation was so important. I want to point out that there are many factors that have influence for example: money, media, people organization, education, economic situation, etc.

Alexander and Martha,

Many thanks for the inputs. You have brought out two important dimensions of citizen participation:

1. Awareness and involvement

2. Exercising the the right to vote as a pressure tool.

As you may be seeing in the news, India is gearing up to its Parliamentary elections next month. This is the largest exercise in democracy anywhere in the world. To give you some election facts:

1. There are 1647 political parties (national, regional and registered parties) directly or in various combinations, contesting this elections. I wonder if any other country can boast of as many parties!!

2. 814 out of 1200 million Indians are eligible to vote - more than twice the entire population of USA.

3. 100 million young people in the age group of 18-19 years will vote for the first time. They constitute over 2% of the votes, up from 0.09% in the last elections in 2009.

4. Nearly 60% of the registered voters are women.

Unlike the previous elections where party ideology was the key theme, this time across the country there is a huge awareness and demand from citizens for good, accountable governance and against corruption in public life. Both factors mentioned above are at play and the Indian elections 2014 will be a good case study on how aspirations translate to reality.

Have a great day!

Citizen participation IS shared governance...the lack of participation is not. When citizens don't participate the power base is self-serving, not collective.

Hello Morris,

In the world, governance is controlled by small economic and political groups.

Hello, Martha,

Accepted...I just do not consider that... government. It is representative of special interests but not collective interest. We are close to calling it something other than government, when we raise the question about citizen participation.

Citizen participation in promoting good governance involves the following:

Participation in the electoral process that reflects mandate that is citizen-driven and not elite-driven.

Participation in the budget process that allows citizens to voice their priorities and use effective advocacy to engage relevant stakeholders in resource allocation.

Monitor public expenditure and raise issues to be addressed.

Hold governments accountable for the quality of services delivered.

Upholding citizen's rights and obligations as contained in the Constitution.

Institution of public discussions could promote improvements in good governance and also enhance the ownership of programmes. Public discussion is potentially important in promoting good governance. Though some countries have tended to encourage this type of public debate on matters of governance, there have often been no mechanism for pursuing the outcome of the discussions to the right conclusion.

These discussions would bring to the fore increased awareness within the population/citizens of the benefits of certain policy measures as they seek to maximise social welfare.

In addition, as part of the effort towards promoting good governance, the public debates of government programmes would lead to increased or at least induce, compliance by policy makers, hence promote good governance.

Finally, public debate or discussions would be quite instrumental in minimising the special advantages of the various interest groups that have often negatively influenced most processes relating to good governance.

The ultimate purpose of increasing the awareness of the citizens of their active role and participation in national matters would go a long way to promote good governance

Hello Alexander:

Mexico is an interesting case about promote improvement in good governance in the last years. Laws had changed to encourage citizen participation in elections firstly.Also,government and political parties had promoted public debate and discussions about economic, social and political reforms.

Public participation can be enhanced through advocacy. Let people know the channels to the achievement of their entitlement. Speaking from the South African perspective, I think the central right to the enhancement of public participation is Section 33 of the Constitution, the right to administrative justice and its twin, the right to access of information. I have extensively talked of the right to administrative justice and its application in the attached thesis. Behind it are extensive publications where this right is extrapolated.

Here is the attachment

Article An evaluation of the transformation of public service delive...

Dear Alexander, Martha, Rossitsa amd Mampolokeng - thank you for interesting and good inputs.

@Rossitsa - your right that awareness and involvement coupled with right to information are key to participation. There is another dimension to good participation in my opinion. A responsive bureaucracy! Across the world, irrespective of the type of government that we may have, the attitude of the bureaucracy towards empowering and enabling the citizens is a critical requirement. In India for example, the Right to Information Act (RTI) has been hailed as successful in breaking down bureaucratic apathy. It is true that apathy has been shaken but not sufficiently as to become proactive in delivery.

Bureaucratic (or, shall we say, Administrative) reforms in my opinion are key to ensuring successful and meaningful participation. Please share inputs on this aspect of administrative reforms in respect of your country, if available.

@Mampolokeng - Administrative Justice practically encompasses the entire gamut of bureaucratic activity in promoting good governance. Thank you for the attachment.

Have a great day!

So far, we appear to have overlooked the role of the media in promoting citizen awareness and participation in governance matters. The recent and rapid growth of the media especially through their privatisation have somewhat helped to raise the public awareness of governance concerns as well as their increased participation.The plethora of private FM radio stations and the emerging discussion groups in many many African countries have helped to improve public debate on governance as well as increased exposure of the citizens on the ongoing governance matters. I think that the media or rather the growing media and the growing discussions on the airwaves have had very important role to play.

However, we may note that the frequency of debate and discussions have not resulted in any serious attempts by governments to seriously address the outcome of these debates. In short, what role or action can the public take to ensure that the discussions do not result in mere statements which are not backed by critical policy measures?

Dear Alexander,

A very pertinent input/query from you on the role of media. In the worst extreme, we have seen the ICTR Media Trial case where media was found guilty of having played into the hands of Akayesu and other perpetrators of the worst human rights tragedy we have witnessed in 25 years. The case highlights, in my opinion, three requirements each of which is a bit idealistic to achieve:

1. Independence of media - the negative point is on the funds for the media. If they do not take sides with industries and politicians, how will they get funds?

2. Factual journalism - TRP ratings are more important to media than facts because sensation sells.

3. Non-Judgemental reporting - Media trials are not uncommon in most of the contexts. Where the judicial/administrative machinery needs to go through unbiased process to deliver justice, media will force public opinion generated through sensationalism, making it difficult for authorities to act fairly.

The above mentioned are neither uncommon nor unheard criticism on the media. In order to promote good governance by increasing 'learned' participation of citizens, we need to find a balance between all these challenges.

Have a great day!

Media is a key factor in all countries, in especial Tv network , becasuse has many influence about people, that´s why in some countries government controls most Media.